The Nepal Army's 'recommendations' to the CA Committee on Protection of the National Interest has raised hackles. While it is the fundamental right of every citizen to respond to the CA's call for suggestions, an instrument of state is expected to abide by operational norms of proper procedure. The NA brass has clearly overstepped its limits by bypassing the executive to present its case directly before the legislature. Under normal circumstances, an organ of state has to access parliament through the concerned ministry.

But even more alarming is the tone of the content. A civilian chain of command means the army shouldn't have a political position of its own other than that of the government of the day. Whether the legislature deems it necessary to hold a referendum on issues of national importance or decides it by simple majority should be of little concern to the bureaucracy, police or the army. They should leave that to the public sphere: academia, thinktanks, the media and even neighbourhood teashops. That is where the political parties pick up the threads for debate in the legislature.

The suggestion for the formation of National Defence Council, chaired by the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) to advise the government and head of state on issues pertaining to national security is mischievous. It would undermine the importance of the National Security Council headed by the prime minister and the Central Security Committee chaired by the home minister. The Ministry of Defence would lose even the minimal role it has at present of functioning as a link between Bhadrakali and Singha Darbar.

In 1990, five bemedalled generals cornered Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and asked him to quietly accept a statute promulgated by the king. The confrontation that ensued in the following years destroyed all the three institutions-democracy, constitutional monarchy and the army. Morale of soldiers is a concern, but the protection of the people's democratic aspirations are even more important in formulating the supreme law of the land.

Instead of overstepping its brief, the army should have come clean on its war-time excesses on its own, especially regarding disappearances and extra-judicial killings. That would be a much better way to restore its image, force the Maoists to also own up to their atrocities and help the peace and reconciliation process.

The alternative to Maoist totalitarianism is not a return to rightwing military dictatorship. What couldn't be resolved militarily has to be resolved through the supremacy of civilian representatives accountable to the people who elected them.